Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I was going back and rewatching some of the Trek movies, and sat through Star Trek V, which in my opinion is the worst of the movie series. Rewatching it, the whole movie comes off as a really bad B-flick, with substandard special effects and horrible script writing.

However at the heart of the movie, I thought there was a good idea, but just poorly executed.

What didn't work:

The most painstaking part of this movie is how bad the special effects are. The way they show the shuttle bay landing sequence, it looks worse than the old series effects shots. Moreover most of the shots of the Enterprise, the ship looks dead. There's one particular shot where the Enterprise is shown against the moon, and you can clearly see it's just a backdrop plate.

Cornball scenes, like the Enterprise campout. What should have been a humorous scene, just comes off as rediculously bad acting.

The woman who plays the Romulan council. Could they have possibly found a worse actress to play her? In addition there's nothing about her that looks Romulan. They cover up her ears, and she wears this long flowing dress that makes her more look like Princess Leah than a Romulan.

What did work:

I thought the premise of the movie was very compelling. A Vulcan who rejected the teachings of Logic and embraced emotion, wanting to search for his creator. That part is very much a part of Star Trek.

Sybok was a well crafted character and I thought well played by Laurence Luckenbil.

I would love to see some sort of cut with Star Trek V, to get rid of most of the corny scenes, and updated special effects, to see if it was more compelling.

The camping scene is fine as is..

the FX are awful

and the scene where SYBOK makes them see thier pain is, I think, one of the best acted scenes in any TREK movie...

One of the worst things in my mind has always been the 'Captains Log' device breaking the way it did, there were at least reasons for why the Enterprise was a mess but a random piece of equipment also being busted is just stupid.

No, it could not have been saved, because the writers wrote themselves into a hole from which there was no escape, at least not within the confines of Trek.

I think you're spot on with your observation. You can't do a movie about going to meet God and then not meet him, and in Trek you can't meet God. It's a good idea for a movie, but as a Star Trek movie it is doomed before pen is put to paper.

__________________...so many different suns...

"No one is actually dead until the ripples they cause in the world die away." - The immortal Terry Pratchett

One of the worst things in my mind has always been the 'Captains Log' device breaking the way it did, there were at least reasons for why the Enterprise was a mess but a random piece of equipment also being busted is just stupid.

What, can't a computer virus take out a laptop? If everything there is networked, then anything could pop off.

One of the worst things in my mind has always been the 'Captains Log' device breaking the way it did, there were at least reasons for why the Enterprise was a mess but a random piece of equipment also being busted is just stupid.

What, can't a computer virus take out a laptop? If everything there is networked, then anything could pop off.

No, it could not have been saved, because the writers wrote themselves into a hole from which there was no escape, at least not within the confines of Trek.

I think you're spot on with your observation. You can't do a movie about going to meet God and then not meet him, and in Trek you can't meet God. It's a good idea for a movie, but as a Star Trek movie it is doomed before pen is put to paper.

I think they had the right idea, to show a zealot so overshadowed by his own arrogance, that he led them right into a trap when he thought he was leading them to paradise.

I had origionally heard that they were trying to get Sean Connery to play Sybok, but he was contracted for Indiana Jones at the time, and had to turn down the part. I think it would have been fascinating to see how he could have brought life to the character.

When I look at this film, I just see the pieces of what could have been one of the best Trek films, but put together as one of the worst. I know the strike, really hurt the production of this film, and that's another factor that you have to consider. Alot of work done on this film was done by guys that had little or no experience, because they were filling in for the lockedout Union workers.

__________________
You will cry like a little girl, as I repeatedly violate your canon infront of you.

No, it could not have been saved, because the writers wrote themselves into a hole from which there was no escape, at least not within the confines of Trek.

I think you're spot on with your observation. You can't do a movie about going to meet God and then not meet him, and in Trek you can't meet God. It's a good idea for a movie, but as a Star Trek movie it is doomed before pen is put to paper.

I think they had the right idea, to show a zealot so overshadowed by his own arrogance, that he led them right into a trap when he thought he was leading them to paradise.

I had origionally heard that they were trying to get Sean Connery to play Sybok, but he was contracted for Indiana Jones at the time, and had to turn down the part. I think it would have been fascinating to see how he could have brought life to the character.

When I look at this film, I just see the pieces of what could have been one of the best Trek films, but put together as one of the worst. I know the strike, really hurt the production of this film, and that's another factor that you have to consider. Alot of work done on this film was done by guys that had little or no experience, because they were filling in for the lockedout Union workers.

Had Shat been able to film what he had in his first script (which I got to read years ago) it would have been great because it would have been a KIRK SPOCK struggle...Nimoy meddled with the script (wouldn't do it as written) and then Paramount later started slashing the budget...could have been a great trek movie..but I will give it credit for not being about a returning probe to Earth...or a sequel to an episode..or a sequel to a movie which was a sequel to an episode..

Nemesis is the worst TREK movie all time. Even in real dollar terms it didn't make what V did. Nemesis was the Genesis of Berman's eventual boot out the door...Nemesis has worst acting than V, a idiotic villain and..well...crappier FX than V (CGI was awful, while pretending to be good)

No, it could not have been saved, because the writers wrote themselves into a hole from which there was no escape, at least not within the confines of Trek.

I think you're spot on with your observation. You can't do a movie about going to meet God and then not meet him, and in Trek you can't meet God. It's a good idea for a movie, but as a Star Trek movie it is doomed before pen is put to paper.

I've read this from Bennett numerous times, and it always sounded like a piss-poor excuse for how crap the film turned out, ie) not our fault.

Star Trek has dealt with the concept of God countless times, and has handled it well by and large. Regarding the ending, well... every movie is predictable in that sense. Either the heroes will win, or they won't. But, they always do. Did anyone think that the Joker would win in Batman? Or that Titanic wouldn't sink? Yet they were both very good.

I've read this from Bennett numerous times, and it always sounded like a piss-poor excuse for how crap the film turned out, ie) not our fault.

Star Trek has dealt with the concept of God countless times, and has handled it well by and large.

There's a huge, huge difference between dealing with some "God" that is really just a powerful alien, and dealing with God without quotes, the God of Abraham, the God that some sizable portion of the audience believes in.

It is only the former "Gods" that Trek put on screen frequently. Other sci-fi/fantasy franchises have seriously handled the latter God, and sometimes handed it well, but not Trek.

I liked this movie a lot more than I liked Star Trek III. Oh sure, i's not great, but the comedic bits had me XD!! more than once. It was a lot "under explained" than the TOS episodes though. The crew didn't even speculate what the big "energy face" was about, or even how they were suddenly able to cross the "great barrier."

Was the great barrier just something no one ever tried crossing before? "Oh man that looks dangerous."

__________________
Please Captain. Not infront of the Klingons.
"What's so damn troublesome about not havin' died?"

I liked TFF, mainly because I read the novelization first and loved it. But looking back, I guess it didn't make much sense that this super powerful entity needed a starship or that it only communicated with Sybok. Surely there are other Vulcans and even more telepathic species out there. Perhaps they should've changed what the entity wanted. Perhaps there should've been a community of different species, 'believers' already down on the planet and the entity was using their belief in it to power itself, something like the Ori from Stargate SG-1.

I wouldn't have minded Sybok being a little more fanatic-if pressed- and manipulative. Also, I would've liked to see what pain the other crew members had besides Spock and Bones.

I read once that the plan had been to use the Romulans instead of Klaa, and I wish they had gone with that. It would've been nice to see an updated Romulan warbird in a TOS
movie.

I understand that V is not one of the best movies, but I still have a soft spot for it. One of the scenes I have come to love is the camp fire, where Kirk is hammered and McCoy is pretty far gone. For the most part I thought it was very well written, although a bit over the top.

Don't even start me on the center of the galaxy....thing though.

__________________

The Enterprise DID have a second Five Year Mission between 2273 and 2278. Just use a little imagination.

I've recently gotten my girlfriend hooked on Trek by way of the original series on YouTube. Not on purpose; I was watching them and she started casually watching them with me. Imagine my delight when she started asking for more!

She's a complete sci-fi newbie and is drawn to the characters. She's especially taken a liking to Spock and McCoy and their 'gruff love' relationship.

Over the weekend, we had a movie marathon and tore through all six TOS movies. She recognizes The Wrath of Khan as the best of the bunch, said she had the most fun with The Voyage Home for the levity/humor (especially watching it directly after the relatively depressing preceding movie), and puts The Final Frontier as her next favorite. She actually let out a whimper during the scene with McCoy and his father, and laughed (in a good way) during the campfire scenes. She asked, after that movie, if the actors were friends in real life because she thought their relationship onscreen felt very genuine.

After I learned that today was the 20th Anniversary of its' theatrical release, I watched TFF again. I've reevaluated my thoughts on it and I agree with many of the other posters that the movie needs an special effects upgrade and the jokes need to go. It has been a few years since the last time I watched it and now I think it is a fair movie.

As we all know TFF gets a lot of flack over the last two decades but some here in the thread have pointed out that it had a lot of outside factors against it. One factor that may not have been mentioned yet, is the movie's budget. According to the movie's IMDB box office info,Wikipedia and Memory Alpha articles, the movie only had a $27.8 million budget. Even in 1989, you couldn't do much with that. yet according to the same information it made nearly twice its' budget in U.S. gross box office.

IMHO, we all need to re-evaluate TFF and, perhaps give it the benefit of the doubt. I know I have.